The bulk update request #5132 is pending approval.

create alias oceangate_tragedy (0) -> oceangate_implosion (0)
create implication oceangate_implosion (0) -> oceangate (8)
create implication titan_(oceangate) (1) -> oceangate (8)

Reason: To unite the terms used for the tragedy, and connect company with product
_{My first BUR, really hoping i did this right}

bananfisk said:
The bulk update request #5132 is pending approval.

create alias oceangate_tragedy (0) -> oceangate_implosion (0)
create implication oceangate_implosion (0) -> oceangate (8)
create implication titan_(oceangate) (1) -> oceangate (8)

Reason: To unite the terms used for the tragedy, and connect company with product
_{My first BUR, really hoping i did this right}

Huh, first BUR in 10 years that you've been here. Ya wanted to do something special for your account's tenth burthday?

Genuine question, why all the downvotes? Yes there's only two images right now but there could be more in the future. And this is a very grisly topic that people may want to blacklist.

The wikipedia page is currently named "Titan submersible implosion" so perhaps the tag could be titan_submersible_implosion

cloudpie said:
Genuine question, why all the downvotes? Yes there's only two images right now but there could be more in the future. And this is a very grisly topic that people may want to blacklist.

The wikipedia page is currently named "Titan submersible implosion" so perhaps the tag could be titan_submersible_implosion

I originally downvoted partially because I'd recently seen the Wikipeda talk page and their own giant argument about the page name. Disaster, implosion (then there was somebody arguing "we don't know if it was an implosion or a slow leak"), disappearance, incident (favored before the debris was found), tragedy. The was a suggestion to the effect of "why not just call it Titan submersible, since it's a unique vessel?", etc. And I can kinda understand that last one, vessels which do not have a separate tragedy page just have their disappearance/sinking on their main page (e.g. the Mary Celeste)

The other reason is that a preemptive BUR for literally two posts just seemed silly, but I've sort of come around to getting feet in the door before there's a ton of tags.

snpthecat said:
Huh, first BUR in 10 years that you've been here. Ya wanted to do something special for your account's tenth burthday?

I purchased and ate a cake, despite being on a diet to lose weight
I also congratulated Binagon on his 10th birthday, since he made his account just under two days before I made mine

potentialgoat said:
I originally downvoted partially because I'd recently seen the Wikipeda talk page and their own giant argument about the page name. Disaster, implosion (then there was somebody arguing "we don't know if it was an implosion or a slow leak"), disappearance, incident (favored before the debris was found), tragedy. The was a suggestion to the effect of "why not just call it Titan submersible, since it's a unique vessel?", etc. And I can kinda understand that last one, vessels which do not have a separate tragedy page just have their disappearance/sinking on their main page (e.g. the Mary Celeste)

The other reason is that a preemptive BUR for literally two posts just seemed silly, but I've sort of come around to getting feet in the door before there's a ton of tags.

I wasn't quite sure either whether it should be "*_implosion -> *_tragedy" or "*_tragedy -> *_implosion" , so I chose "-> implosion" because it seemed to be the most common conclusion about what happpened

In hindsight, it should probably have been aliasing "*_accident, *_tragedy, *_disaster, *_disappearance, *_incident, *_implosion" to whatever is agreed upon

Another part of the reason is also that both images existed without notable correlation to each other (at the time of suggestion), despite being about the same company's ventures
And yes, that could be fixed by just adding the tag, but the implications and aliases exist to improve the tagging system

cloudpie said:
Genuine question, why all the downvotes? Yes there's only two images right now but there could be more in the future. And this is a very grisly topic that people may want to blacklist.

The wikipedia page is currently named "Titan submersible implosion" so perhaps the tag could be titan_submersible_implosion

The submarine accident wasn't a video game developed by oceangate, why tie oceangate to this tragedy?

There is always the likelihood to reference the accident and exclude all logos and symbols. If anything oceangate_implosion must be aliased to submarine_implosion and not implicated to oceangate. How often do submarines blow in and out? Do we tag every large ship that sinks with titanic?

For example, take this post below which references the tragedy and was then tagged oceangate_implosion, but unless you're aware of the tragedy you will have not a single idea that it is based on that tragedy at a glance. This is TWYS and this post is going against it.
post #4133732

For tags like this, they should all follow the format of titanic.

Further, I agree with potentialgoat that it's too soon regardless. Nobody can agree on a name for the incident and there are probably more than 3 posts, my guess is they have all been tagged something else.

wolfmanfur said:
For example, take this post below which references the tragedy and was then tagged oceangate_implosion, but unless you're aware of the tragedy you will have not a single idea that it is based on that tragedy at a glance. This is TWYS and this post is going against it.
post #4133732

Copyright tags don't follow TWYS in the strictest sense, this argument could go for any copyright tag, someone who's unaware of the copyright would have no idea that the image is based on it.

My take: We really should have a tag for the incident for search and blacklist purposes. Some people aren't gonna want to see images referencing this real-world tragedy while they're jerking off. We do need to decide on a good name though. I guess my vote would be for titan_submersible_implosion.

As for whether to imply oceangate... probably not, imo

Edit: actually I can see why an oceangate umbrella tag was originally suggested, as an image could reference the incident without actually showing tbe vehicle, like the vaporeon one. I'm still unsure if it's really necessary though

cloudpie said:
Genuine question, why all the downvotes?

exploitation.

Or rather, "contentification" if I can just make a word up.

Something I would describe as an amoral, ruthless, cynical dissimination of events in the real world, mostly via memetic devices, designed to induce a strong reaction which ultimately leads to it's propagation, which leads to either a social or monetary gain when successful ("""Trending""").

Which is something I am not charging you of, at least consciously, but I am saying this to more or less describe the mechanism behind the media... Feeding frenzy? Shitting frenzy. The mass shitting frenzy that began with news outlets that ultimately solicited a myriad of responses upon the saturation coverage of an event that was, for them, driven by profit and for us, social recognition.

A sort of manufactured, short term obsession by both parties, mostly denoted by being (Or appearing to, attempting to be) Topical. Controversial. Clever. Intelligent. Necessary.

A song and dance that, for me, always reads like someone with vacant eyes and a forced smile asking me "Have you heard of the hot new rape scandal that's sweeping across america? Everyone is talking about it! Don't you want to hear all about it? Won't you tell me what you think about it? And wow, talk about a mass shooting, am I right?"

Which, to me, probably a lot of other people - Who maybe aren't as traumatized, and are hopefully better adjusted to a sick society - That line of inquiry, inherant to the one way (and perhaps Only way) it can ever be approached, it would only ever further the dynamic I've previously described as Contentification.

It's as though the very nature of culture and society becomes a little more transformed into a nihilism factory every time one engages in this sort of thing.

Which is a lot of why I don't watch the news. Or television. Or am active on any social media platform. And have to be afraid of using either google or youtube. Because algorithms are a logical sequence of mathematical equations designed to facilitate contentification.

Up to a certain point, it's like putting a car in neutral, getting out, and pushing it toward the downward slope.
It naturally, on it's own, starts rolling downhill and crashes into a crowd of people.

And a lot of people are really quite tired of finding that they simply cannot walk one block without watching this happen again.

Hopefully, I'm not being entirely too awful in describing all this to you, when you seemingly had good natured (If ignorant) intent...

But I did just try to search for something on google, earlier. And I became horrifically reminded of some injury that never quite heals, but gets ripped wide open again.

is profitable, after all.

And so is death.

And tragedy.

And a lot of other things that can be effortlessly harvested from the world, processed, enriched, branded and distributed as Content that generates a reward.

That's why I downvoted.

letforeverdieslow said:
*snip*

man, that's a whole lot of not reasons to downvote a BUR.

like, disliking the content under a tag is a terrible reason to not approve of the existence of a tag.

darryus said:
man, that's a whole lot of not reasons to downvote a BUR.

To be honest, I'm perfectly fine with them being called not-reasons but if I can be just a little semantic,

I'd rather call them feelings.

Which are, admittedly, fairly nebulous and irrational things.

Though I'd like to imagine I didn't just describe my own, but hopefully of others and, if I'm lucky, maybe I did so without putting a word in anyone else's mouth.

If nothing else?
I'm not quite sure I was arguing against this, so much as I meant to offer why people gave a response that I feel is emotional, but also valid.

letforeverdieslow said:
....

So... you downvoted the proposition to have an easily-blacklistable tag for this topic because you don't like the topic? You dislike it so much that perhaps you don't want to see it on e621?
Hmm, I wonder how you could permanantly avoid seeing it on e621...

The point of this thread is to come up with a proper name for the tag and alias similar names to it so it can be easily blacklisted (or searched for).

It's a specific event that people have drawn and refer to. A unified tag or set of tags is only logical for both searchability and blacklisting reasons.